Would the Chimp indeed be arrested if he set foot in a foreign country?

[kay1864]

For sake of argument, let's assume this post is correct, and the Chimp lands in Nice or Barcelona next March, not knowing there's an arrest warrant waiting for him for war crimes. Or arrogantly not caring, thinking he's immune.

A friend suggested that the Secret Service wouldn't allow him to be taken into custody. Here was my response (mostly guesswork):

AFAIK the Secret Service cannot prevent their arrest in a foreign country. It's not like they're taking the EX-president hostage--they are lawfully arresting him. Yes, the SS would do their jobs to protect him from imminent threat, but it doesn't extend to violating the laws of other countries. There might be a shouting match etc. between the lead SS guy and the lead arresting authority, but the SS would be forced to stand down, and the Chimp (as a private citizen, he no longer has Air Force One etc) would be taken into custody. Or they might just arrest anyone in the SS who interfered. Once you're in a foreign country (even if you're an SS guy), you don't have "American rights". You can and will be arrested if you're interfering with a police officer doing his duty.

Also, as a private citizen, Chimp would not be allowed to even leave said country, since as a private citizen, he has to go through customs and immigration just like everyone else. His passport would be confiscated were he to try and leave.

Now, maybe there's a VIP line that's separate from the main customs and immigration. but even THEIR officers are beholden to THEIR country--they don't give a rat's ass about US laws, since they don't apply. So if there is an outstanding arrest warrant, he simply would not be allowed to leave, and his passport confiscated. And if the SS interfered, THEY would be arrested as well, and THEIR passports confiscated.

And the arresting authorities may indeed show up with a platoon (for sake of argument, let's say it's Spain) . The Spanish police (or whoever) would be smart enough to show up with enough officers to arrest every member of the SS present.

Remember, Pinochet probably had a security detail with him too (which ultimately all the SS is--it's not like they're carrying bazookas under their suits). Didn't keep him from getting arrested.

How would this work? Next March, as a former Head of State (even an illegitimate one like the Chimp), does he bypass Customs and Immigration?

And if arrest were attempted, would the SS herd him back onto whatever private jet he flew in on, guns a-blazin'? Or would they recognize the authority of officers?

[KansDem]

1. "...does he bypass Customs and Immigration?"

Good question. As a "private citizen," will he have to take off his shoes to go through airport security?

I doubt it: Taxes are paid, and shoes are taken off, by the "little people."

[kay1864]

5. He would likely be flying private jet, not commercial

So no, you don't go through that, since you're the one chartering the jet.

However, airport security is a separate thing from C&I. I think even VIPs have to present their passports etc.

[Andy823]

2. I really don't know

The answer to your question, but I would sure love to see him arrested, but in jail, and tried for the war crimes he has committed, then put in prison for life! Same goes for Cheney, and the rest of the gang who took us into Iraq.

[The Magistrate]

3. An Interesting Question, Sir

The future may provide an answer....

[MannyGoldstein]

4. They'll Know Ahead Of Time That He'd Be Arrested

And simply won't go.

[kay1864]

6. "But daddy, why CAN'T we go to the French Riviera?"

"You PROMISED!"

[mainegreen]

8. Agreed.

More than likely the government of any country where he might be arrested would prefer to avoid the whole scenario, and would quietly send him word that he is not welcome, should not come, otherwise he would be arrested.

[kay1864]

55. Actually he might be more limited than even that

Let's say Spain decides to indict him. So Bush doesn't go to Spain, he goes to France. But France has an extradition treaty with Spain. Once he lands in France, *Spanish* police can arrest him and deport him to Spain for trial. (or maybe French police turn him over to the Spanish police--not sure how the international extradition process works, actually)

(France and Spain used as examples only)

So his travel might be limited to countries that do not have extradition treaties with countries X and Y (where they've issued arrest warrants).

And per Wikipedia, "most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries". Exceptions (for the US at least) are places like China, Namibia, and North Korea. (hey, I hear North Korea has some excellent beaches...)

And as the article in the OP points out, this arrest risk could be in effect for decades.

[Clovis Sangrail]

7. what makes you think * would be going to another country?

I don't think he was a globe trotter prior to becoming preznit.

[bdamomma]

35. he wasn't that is why he doesn't know

crap about other cultures.

[Clovis Sangrail]

40. you don't need to travel the world to respect other cultures /nt

[SteelPenguin]

9. No, they can't arrest him

When the President travels to other countries he has Diplomatic Immunity provided to him by the Vienna Conventions. His secret service agents protecting him are also covered. It would be illegal for any agent of a foreign government on their soil to arrest the President, or any of his security detail, and if they attempted, would be considered hostile illegal action by the secret service, and they'd fight their way out if they had to.

[kay1864]

10. Please read the OP

and notice the phrase "next March".

[SteelPenguin]

13. If you mean when he's the former president....

...instead of the sitting one, it doesn't make a difference. Former Presidents retain full diplomatic immunity, and secret service protection, for the rest of their lives.

[kay1864]

16. Please provide a link to support your claim

that former Presidents retain full diplomatic immunity.

[SteelPenguin]

18. No

I'm not going to link basic International Criminal Law books and links to the Belgian arrest warrant case, or other rulings from the ICJ or other bodies, documents listed on the state departments own website, or anything else because I'm sure no matter what I link you'll have a problem with em.

I also have better things to do than your own research.

[kay1864]

19. Dude, it's not my research, it's yours

Your claim, you back it up.

And your assumption that I'll "have a problem with em" is just silly. Defensive much?

One good link. One. Convince us. Otherwise it's just your unsupported claim.

[onenote]

43. here ya go:

Wei Ye v. Jiang Zemin, 383 F.3d 620(7th Cir. Sept. 8, 2004).
http://www.asil.org/insights/2004/11/insight041122.html

[kay1864]

44. Thanks, but it appears that in both cases...

the immunity was applied while they were current heads of state. (the charges against Zemin were while he was still President)

[onenote]

45. While the Appeals court didn't rely on the District Court holding, it didn't overturn it

And the district court squarely held that Zemin was immune even after he left office for acts committed while in office.

At very least, the abilty to bring charges against a former head of state is a debatable (and debated) issue. And as a practical matter, its not going to happen with respect to Bush. You can bet everything you own on that proposition.

[kay1864]

49. You're missing one vital point...

The findings of a US appeals court is not binding upon the international community, nor is it a tenet of international law.

In other words, Spain or France couldn't care less about the case you cite.

[onenote]

52. that's quite an overstatement

Are they bound by the US decision? No. But Spain and France care deeply about what the US thinks and that includes what its courts think. It would be the height of naievete to assume otherwise.

[kay1864]

54. Actually it doesn't matter either way

The case doesn't apply in the event of genocide or war crimes (see my post #53 below).

But I'm glad to see that you agree that the findings of a US appeals court is not binding upon the international community, nor is it a tenet of international law.

[kay1864]

53. And when all else fails, there's Wikipedia :-)

Recent developments in international law suggest that this type of immunity (for those performing acts of state), whilst it may be available as a defence to prosecution for local or domestic crimes or civil liability, is not a defence to an international crime. (International crimes include crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide).

<snip>

The reasons commonly given for why this immunity is not available as a defence to international crimes is straight forward: (1) that is genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are not acts of state. Criminal acts of the type in question are committed by human actors, not states; and (2) we cannot allow the jus cogens nature of international crimes, i.e. the fact that they are non-derogable norms, to be eroded by immunities.

So as a former head of state, the Chimp is NOT unequivocally immune, in the cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. And war crimes are exactly what the Director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals is alleging in the article in the OP.

[Vickers]

23. SS protection ends after 10 years.

Oops.

[kay1864]

26. Yes indeed

But only starting with Chimp. Bush Sr and Clinton have lifetime protection; subsequent Presidents are limited to 10 years. Regulation was changed while Clinton was in office, and it was not retroactive.

[Vickers]

28. Didn't Carter decline his after awhile?

:shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

27. Bush will be the first President that will NOT receive lifetime SS protection.

It was passed while Clinton was President. Clinton continues to receive lifetime.

http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/protection.shtml

[LiberalFighter]

31. There is nothing in international law that provides permanent diplomatic immunity.

The only way anyone other than a current President has any type of automatic immunity is if they are involved in a diplomatic mission in another country that agrees to their participation.

If one travels to another country personal or business reasons not related to official government business they do not have diplomatic immunity of any type.

[Clovis Sangrail]

42. so Milosevic was arrested ... how?

As a former president shouldn't he have had diplomatic immunity preventing UN prosecution?

[riderinthestorm]

11. How did they bypass that with Pinochet's arrest? nt

[Growler]

21. Pinochet wasn't the President of the most powerful country

on the planet?

:shrug:

[kay1864]

22. Nor is the Chimp, in the scenario in the OP

note the phrase "next March"

[Growler]

38. I noted it. It doesn't matter.

In the calculus of international politics, a former President of the US still trumps everyone else.

[Meiko]

12. Thank God

finally some common sense, Thanks...:D

[Vickers]

14. Better read the OP again.

Next March he won't be a Pretzeldent any more (thank Gawd).

[kay1864]

17. Yes, by all means...

let's take the opinion of one DUer as gospel over that of an international human rights lawyer, British Queen’s Counsel, Director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals, and Professor of International Law at University College London.

:eyes:

[zorahopkins]

15. Let Him Try

Let Bush try to land in another country, and see what happens.

I hope he tries to go to Canada -- I'd like to see the US SS provoke an incident with Canada when Canada tries to take a war criminal into custody on behalf of civilized people everywhere.

[Contrary1]

20. Would Saddam Hussein have had diplomatic immunity

if he had traveled to the US? And, if so; do you think Bush and Co. would have honored it?

[LiberalFighter]

29. He wouldn't had even been allowed into the country.

[Growler]

24. It will never happen

And if some other country tried it, President Obama would send a couple carrier fleets in to take care of things. And he'd be right to do so.

[kay1864]

30. President Obama sending carrier fleets to Spain or France or Canada

to rescue a lawfully indicted citizen accused of war crimes is indeed an interesting concept.

[Growler]

36. being an former President of the US trumps everything

I'm not saying I like it, just saying that's the way it is.

[kay1864]

37. Not quite

It doesn't trump being the current President of the US.

[Growler]

39. Heh. Agreed.

And ANY current President will ensure that certain precedents aren't established.

It's not about the Chimp, it's about the title "President".

[kay1864]

41. And I'm not as sure as you seem to be

that President Obama would interfere militarily with a Spanish, French, or Canadian arrest warrant (which would itself be carefully considered by that country), just to prevent such a precedent.

[onenote]

46. You should be more sure. ALthough it would never come to military intervention

There are lots of other ways that an Obama administration (or any other administration) could pressure those governments not to act in the first place or to rescind such action.

It just isn't going to happen and I don't think chimpy and his gang are going to lose a minute's sleep worrying about what might happen if they visit Canada or Spain or France, etc.

[kay1864]

47. Thanks for telling me how I should be thinking

I'll be sure to keep my thinking in line with yours in the future

:eyes:

[Growler]

48. I can't imagine any of the countries actually considering

such a warrant. So it's a moot point. :)

But I like the tenor of your argument. Let's just say that I go to bed at night believing that I'm correct, but hoping that you are. :)

[kay1864]

50. I can imagine it quite easily. I've been to several of them.

And the Chimp is not exactly viewed with favor.

Admittedly, that's the *citizens* and not TPTB, but not all of the heads of state are in love with him either.

[Mike Daniels]

51. You nailed it.

No sitting president of the US (Dem or Rep) is going to allow a foreign country to arrest a former president (Dem or Rep) without some diplomatic/economic ramifications following shortly thereafter.

People may not like it but that's the way it is and will always be.

[cobalt1999]

25. There isn't a country out there that would even try.

No sitting president would allow it either from a precedent standpoint.

It's not a legal argument, it's a "big stick" argument.

Bush could go to Venezuela and not be in danger of arrest.

[CBGLuthier]

32. Is that because we are better than anyone else?

Just curious why the former head of the US should be treated differently than the former head of Chile.

It's because we are special, right? God's chosen? The rest of the world is afraid of us?

[cobalt1999]

56. The world isn't fair. Never has been, never will be.

Those with the most clout get away with things others can't.

In any action, the ramifications need to be taken into account, and the ramifications of pissing off the U.S. government are pretty damn big.

Bush isn't ever going to be arrested except by Americans...ever.

[bdamomma]

33. I only hope so.

[undeterred]

34. The Chimp is above the law.

[JackRiddler]

57. Not until he's a private citizen again...

You can be certain his immunity as acting head of state will be respected wherever he lands. Even if the US has a less than perfect record in this regard. (Noriega, Arbenz, Mossadegh, attempted coup on Chavez, several dozen attempts on Castro's life, etc.)

Jan. 21, 2009 is a different story, one reason you can be certain the regime is going to do its damndest to steal the election for McCain.

[kay1864]

59. Yes, that would be...

the entire premise of the OP. For those that read beyond the title.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

58. I would hope not.

[kay1864]

60. Enlighten us, please

You would hope Bush doesn't get arrested? Why?

[Super Soaker Sniper]

61. I would hope NO US President gets arrested

as it would set a terrible precedent and leave all our Presidents even the good ones, subject to the whims of whatever country they are visiting.

Also I am not in favor of Americans, even Bush being tried in courts outside the US, even international ones.

[kay1864]

62. Maybe you should read up on the International Court of Justice

They don't exactly entertain "whims".

[Super Soaker Sniper]

63. I know about it

and do not believe that Americans should be tried by it. Not even Bush.